Access to European Union law
<a href="https://eur-lex.europa.eu/content/help/eurlex-content/experimental-features.html" target="_blank">More about the experimental features corner</a>
Choose the experimental features you want to try
EUR-Lex
Access to European Union law

This document is an excerpt from the EUR-Lex website

You are here
Use quotation marks to search for an "exact phrase". Append an asterisk (*) to a search term to find variations of it (transp*, 32019R*). Use a question mark (?) instead of a single character in your search term to find variations of it (ca?e finds case, cane, care).
Search tips
Need more search options? Use the Advanced search

Document 62016TN0871

    Case T-871/16: Action brought on 8 December 2016 — Spliethoff’s Bevrachtingskantoor v INEA

    IO C 104, 3.4.2017, p. 48–49 (BG, ES, CS, DA, DE, ET, EL, EN, FR, HR, IT, LV, LT, HU, MT, NL, PL, PT, RO, SK, SL, FI, SV)

    3.4.2017   

    EN

    Official Journal of the European Union

    C 104/48

    Action brought on 8 December 2016 — Spliethoff’s Bevrachtingskantoor v INEA

    (Case T-871/16)

    (2017/C 104/68)

    Language of the case: English

    Parties

    Applicant: Spliethoff’s Bevrachtingskantoor BV (Amsterdam, Netherlands) (represented by: Y. de Vries, lawyer)

    Defendant: Innovation and Networks Executive Agency (INEA)

    Form of order sought

    The applicant claims that the Court should:

    —

    annul the defendant’s decision of 17 July 2015 on the rejection of the applicant’s proposal in response to the call for proposals in the context of the Connecting Europe Facility and on the basis of the Multi-annual Work Programme adopted in 2014;

    —

    order the defendant to take a new decision with respect to the applicant’s proposal, taking account of the judgment of the General Court referred to in the application, within three months from the date of the judgment;

    —

    order the defendant to bear the costs.

    Pleas in law and main arguments

    In support of the action, the applicant relies on two pleas in law.

    1.

    First plea in law, alleging manifest error of assessment of the applicant’s proposal.

    —

    The applicant submits reasons why in its view the defendant’s evaluation of the applicant’s proposal against the award criteria relevance, impact and quality was deficient.

    2.

    Second plea in law, alleging infringement of the principle of equal treatment

    —

    The applicant submits reasons why in its view the defendant drew an inappropriate distinction between its proposal relating to emission abatement technologies and similar proposals by its competitors which have been selected for funding.
    Top